Re: Adding the testharness.js subrepo to the csswg-test repo

On Oct 16, 2013, at 12:53 PM, Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org> wrote:

> On Oct 16, 2013, at 20:59, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> It's also not clear to me if we'd want that mirrored on the mercurial side as a subrepo. I don't know that much about how git handles submodules, but in hg a subrepo would stay fixed at a particular revision unless the parent is updated to use a new revision.
> 
> Same for Git.

Ok cool, that makes it simpler on my end.

> 
>> In other words, we wouldn't get the automatic updating of the resources directory, as we do know by leaving them separate. Is this what's really wanted?
> 
> Yes, for consistency with the main repo.

I have no issue with keeping the csswg repo consistent with the main repo. But then we need to know which version of the resources repo the main is using to keep in sync. 

Is there a system for notifications when this changes? or perhaps a tag in the resources repo that we can automatically sync to?

We also serve a copy of the resources repo at http[s]://test.csswg.org/resources so that references in the tests work. I also need to be able to keep that in sync with the version referred to in WPT rather than the tip.

> 
>> I haven't seen any discussion about making the resources directory a submodule in the main WPT repo, so I'm not sure what the goals of this change are.
> 
> It's been a submodule on the main repo for a while now.

That doesn't answer my question.

Was this done only so that people working on local clones of WPT (sort of) automatically get the resources directory? or is there something more to it?

e.g.: Has there also been a change in the way testharness.js gets used? i.e. is it sill always '/resources/testharness.js' or are relative urls now allowed too? Is the expectation now that the resources directory is included in a packaged test suite? Remember that not all test suites are simple clones of the WPT repo...

These kinds of changes have implications and it would be nice if there was some discussion about them before they happened (and if there was, please point me to the forum that I'm missing), and the decision was communicated more broadly... (like in this mailing list)